Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

T O P I C R E V I E W

Robert Pearlman

The following appeared in USA Today by Dan Vergano:

quote:Space memorabilia from the Apollo moon-landing era has become hot among collectors, and space enthusiasts now worry that the items will be damaged or squirreled away in private collections, out of the reach of future generations.

The U.S. government for decades has been selling off items from space missions, such as shuttle tires, unused rocket engine parts, flight manuals and maps. It sells the items as surplus and sends the money back into agency budgets. People who pick up the items, though, often turn around and sell them through private channels.

Auction houses such as Christie's and Sotheby's now hold regular auctions of space memorabilia. Online auction house eBay offers more than 2,400 space exploration collectibles. As the market heats up, some space aficionados complain that items such as lunar maps and parts of space capsules have been sliced and diced, making them more lucrative sales items but ruining their historical value.

''The issue is there is a lot of material out there, and some of it is being destroyed,'' says astronomer Mike Reynolds, head of the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland.

I spoke with the reporter and on his suggestion, submitted a letter to the editor:

quote:As the editor of collectSPACE, an online community for space memorabilia collectors, I read with great interest Dan Vergano's article "New space race is for souvenirs" . While I am glad to see the attention focused on the hobby, I think it would have been helpful to include a collector's viewpoint as part of the reporting.

There is probably no group more concerned about preserving space artifacts for future generations ("historians and schoolchildren" as referred to in the article) than collectors. Whereas NASA and the Smithsonian care for the larger parts of history (i.e. spacecraft, spacesuits, and the like), collectors fill the niche of rescuing the flown and ground-support equipment from the junk yards and recycling plants. And while it is nice that the W Foundation is encouraging collectors to share their collections with the public, many collectors are doing so without any encouragement at all: they visit schools, loan artifacts to museums, and display collections online as a means to educate the public and pay tribute to the history of space flight.

It also should be noted that the helmet pictured with the article, though identified in the caption as Apollo-era was a replica. The eBay seller wrote in the lot description: "This is NOT an actual NASA Apollo space helmet - just LOOKS like one and is sold for collectors only, not for actual life support." A real Apollo helmet would have attracted bids into the thousands.

What do you think? Was the article too harsh on the role played by collectors? Are collectors posing a threat to future "historian and school children"?

[This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 15, 2003).]

Rodina

I think the article's perfectly fair, Robert. And I think your Letter to the Editor adds a useful gloss on the subject. Bully!

But it is a legitimate concern that this stuff is moving into private hands and, therefore, potentially out of public view and therefore into hands that might not treat it as well as by the Smithsonian. Our discussion about what might happen to the Grissom mercury space suit bears this out.

Slightly off topic -- I saw an odd (but good) thing the other day that they do in England: private works of art deemed "significant" (I think this is a fairly low threshold) can be bequeathed to your heirs tax free under the condition that those works of art be made available to the public.

Now, this doesn't mean you have to put them out on the street corner or pass them to a museum, but it does mean that with reasonable arrangement, private parties can come to your home and look at your stuff. It's an interesting system, I'd be interested if our UK friends can tell us more about it.

[This message has been edited by Rodina (edited January 15, 2003).]

apollo11lem5@aol.com

Bravo Robert....You stated you position very well and I for one agree with you. I too believe that collectore have a very positive effect on the preservation of many artifacts. I spelled out my opinion in a post to the "astronauts group" today on exactly why I feel that many artifacts are even better off in private hands than in public museums. Of course, there are good museums and bad ones as well. That is a double edged sword that cuts both ways !! Well stated position Robert...WELL DONE !! Your faithful minion....Donald Brady

mensax

I was pleased to come across this article while reading the paper today. Sure, it's full of errors, but so is most of what is written in the newspapers or appears on our TVs.

My little business is written up every once in a while and I don't believe any of these stories have been without an error or two (or more). It's a shame but most writers are insulted at the idea of their story being proofread by the person being covered. Oh well.

I guess the reason I'm pleased is that our hobby was written about in a national paper. We exist! I wonder what effect this will have on our hobby? Will there be some curious people that have had an interest in space exploration do a search on ebay and get hooked into our hobby? Will we see a temporary surge in prices? Will membership in this board go up and we gain a few new folks? Will space collectors gain recognition and respect... like professional musicians or sports players?

;)

Noah

Rizz

Maybe the W Foundation should have a 'bake sale' to raise some money to obtain some artifacts for its very own.

Not quite sure what all the fuss is about.

Encouraging collectors to share or loan their memorabilia for education is a great idea. I fully support that.

There is a limited amount of this stuff. Buy what you can afford, preserve it, and by all means share it with others how ever you see fit.

Robert, your reply was appropriate. It's always good to have both sides of the story.

If they had researched this a little more, and added the collectors point of view, that would have made for a more complete picture of the space memorabilia enigma.

I don't know that I would advertise my collection and have a house full of people over to survey it.

I have, on occassion, loaned my stuff to schools, including Universities, and intentionally did not provide my name to the public (except of course to my point of contact there).

I'm not interested in any acknowledgement for doing that, just happy to share some of my treasures with people of all ages.

I would encourage others to do so as well.

It's almost an obligation to do so, in my opinion.

Rizz

rjurek349

I guess I have a number of thoughts on this whole issue, but the main one is: why single out space collecting as taking away from the public? What about manuscript dealers and autograph collectors? Those people that collect government documents signed by presidents and senators -- and those that simply "clip" the signatures, toss the documents, and frame the sigs with a nice photo? Or original letters or manuscript drafts of writers, original sheet music from composers? Or antique map collectors -- who get their maps from dealers who buy original hand painted map books, tear the books apart, and sell each map individually? And don't even get me started on art collectors -- are they preventing the world from access to a Picasso or a Degas? Sure, no one is out there cutting up a painting and selling the pieces, but cartoon art sees the cell drawings and illustrations parced out by the hundreds.

Personally, I find it a bit short sighted to just isolate space artifacts -- rather than focus on the issues (both positive and negative) of collecting historic memorabilia...particularly when the argument is more about the concern of preserving history (be it space, political, cultural, etc.).

I am ranting again, I know, and I appreciate attention being paid to the hobby...but the implication of space collecting being negative without being placed in the broader context of collecting historical memorabilia strikes me as a failure of logic.

Rich

[This message has been edited by rjurek349 (edited January 15, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by rjurek349 (edited January 15, 2003).]

rjurek349

And on the specific point of "hoarder" versus "historian" -- I guess it is (for me) somewhere in between.

I do not hoard -- or at least I don't think so. I collect: focused on a few key missions for me that have personal significance. I also don't claim to be a historian -- perhaps I have gained some historical knowledge along the way, but I don't think I could ever claim the expertise on any of the given missions necessary to claim to be an historian. I do, however, try to preserve -- in photos, artifacts, books, etc. -- the historic event. So perhaps I prefer the label of "serious collector" or "amateur preservationist." :-)

I do think collectors in all fields serve an important purpose. Most of the items in these collections would have perished otherwise or risked perishing. In our context, much of what is flown and available (outside of the astros PPK stash, which was mostly souvenir type items) was labeled by NASA as either scrap or disposable (such as the items that would have been left on the LEM, but taken back by an astro as a souvenier).

Out of love for the items themselves, I do everything I can to preserve and protect them, as well as share them with others who have an interest.

So I see it more as an act of preservation, than an act of hoarding.

As for "a lot of stuff out there" and the "2,400 items on ebay" -- well, a lot of that stuff is secondary market collectible items not directly part of a mission. Souvenir coins, dolls, patches, mass produced lithos, mass produced magazines, key chains, coffe cups, etc. These items aren't really what I would call historic. No these items may have a pop culture appeal (I happen to have a favorite item in my Apollo 14 collection of an original flyer from the A14 video arcade game, which Ed Mitchell signed for me -- cool item. Historically important? For a pop-historian, perhaps. To me? Priceless!)

Of the items that one can get relatively "easily" -- such as flown beta cloth patches, flown silk flags, robbins medallions...well, these again are the souvenir items MEANT to be distributed (given away, sold, etc.) The truly HISTORIC stuff (to Robert's point earlier) is on display and held by museums, cultural centers, space centers, etc. such as original capsules, suits, instruments, moon rocks, etc. Any of the other flight items sold on the secondary market got there because NASA deemed them as either disposable (such as C. Duke's lunar maps which would have stayed on the lunar surface in the LEM if Duke had not decided to keep them as a souvenier) or as scrap, such as the many Shuttle parts one sees.

[This message has been edited by rjurek349 (edited January 15, 2003).]

collector

Interesting issue.

We need to keep in mind that not all items in the possession of museums, such as the Smithsonian, are displayed to the public. There simply isn't enough display room to show it all.

I once saw a program on the "hidden rooms", or the basement, of the Smithsonian. It was an hour-long program that showed many of the items that the Smithsonian had that hadn't been displayed for many years. Much of it had never been displayed at all - ever. I was absolutely amazed at the treasures that were stored away. specifically included in the program were many of the original astronaut spacesuits, including some of the Apollo spacesuits.

Obviously a collector would never be able to afford something as unique as an original spacesuit. But the point I'm trying to make is that just because these items are owned by museums doesn't necessarily mean they'll be any more accesible to the general public than an item in a private collection. There are no guarantees - museums are subject to budget, space and sometimes political constraints as well.

Let the collector collect. And let the collector share his collection with others. I'm convinced that many items owned by collectors today would never see the light of day because many are just not historically important or significant enough to demand the valuable museum space that they deserve.

KLC

After reading the posts....... I think we should all open our own museums. LOL!!! Actually, as was said, there isn't enough room to display everything in museums and such. And when you think about it, the amount of items that have flown, etc that is in all of our collections..... while a good amount, is still small. In our own way, we are all historians, and are keeping the idea of spaceflight alive.

R.T.

dsenechal

I've been perusing CollectSpace for quite awhile, but this is my first message. Hope I don't screw it up.

I strongly agree with the three previous individuals. Smithsonian, et al, had the first pick of everything that was available. For a period of time in the 1970's, the remnants that remained after the Apollo program were considered to be garbage. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, ILC (the Apollo A7L space suit manufacturer) had what amounted to a rummage sale to get rid of the space suit "rubbish" that was left over, and it sold for a pittance. The late Charlie Bell was also able to amass a sizable collection of unwanted space "junk" that no one else wanted. His collection included an entire Saturn I! If all of this stuff had not been purchased at auction by SOMEONE, it would have ended up in a landfill. Federal regulations mandate that before ANY excess, old, or obsolete federal property is destroyed, salvaged, or sold at auction; it shall be made available to other federal, state or local agencies and/or public institutions. Bottom line is that the Smithsonian and other museums or public insitutions had first crack at everything. When no one else wanted it, it was "disposed of". Now that this former "garbage" has developed considerable value, historians and museums are bemoaning that fact that they can't have it. Well, if they chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity at the time, they have no business complaining 35 years after the fact. For ANY historical period or event, there are private individuals who collect artifacts from that period or event. The Civil War and World War II come immediately to mind. Consider that Uncle Sam destroyed thousands upon thousands of War Birds from WWII. Nobody wanted them. 55 years later, no one complains about a private collector who owns a P51, or chops the wings short to race it at Reno. Space program artifacts are no different. The "Big Boys" got what they wanted. Let the "Little Guys" chase after the "scraps".

[This message has been edited by dsenechal (edited January 15, 2003).]

elawton@olg.com

The USA Today article regarding private collector's who possess space artifacts was some what one-sided and clearly missed several points. First, as already noted, many private collector's share their collections or portions of their collections with schools and other public venues. I have done this many times in the past few decades. Merely because I possess the item rather than the government does not mean the item won't be seen by the public. In fact, since the US Government typically locks up artifacts and documents in vaults where few, if any have access, private collectors are far more generous in sharing their possessions than our own government.

Secondly, targeting "space collectors" is very unfair. I've been to countless book shows and other events where collectibles formerly owned by the government are subject to sale to private collectors. I've seen presidential papers, land grants, treaties between the U.S. Government and other nations, including tribes of various American Indian nations, books and other valuable possessions that I would have thought would be in a government museum, on sale by private collectors for private collectors. In my opinion, after 40 years of such observations, I consider this more the standard than the exception in our great nation.

I think the writer of this article would have done a greater service to everyone had he extolled the countless incidents of the sharing of space artifacts by those private collectors fortunate enough to have made meaningful acquisitions, and who are generous enough to share these objects with others.

In the eyes of the writer, as many in his profession, he viewed the glass as half-empty, rather than half-full.

CPIA

Looks like it must have been a slow news day at the newspaper.

I can see the editorial dialogue at the newspaper now.

"Let's see, War with Iraq? North Korea launching nuclear tipped missles? Slow economy with higher unemployment? Naw, let's lead with an article of space collecting!"

Does the Fox network own USAToday?

Larry

spaceflori

Something the article completely got wrong - how about people like Leon Ford, Michael Wright and many others who not only collect these artifacts but make it available to the whole world by putting them on their own websites for everybody to enjoy !?

Their efforts in order to show their treasures shouldn't be disqualified compared to a museum - especially people from outside the US who don't visit the US on a regular basis and are able to go to those museums profit from those websites.

Ok folks - where are those government sales - I'd like to add a few items to my collection !!! Glad to see that the US government is still selling Apollo artifacts!! (Robert - you forgot to write in your letter that this is obviously complete bullshit)

ENJOY collecting - remember 60 million American don't believe the US went to the moon !

Florian

------------------

albatron@aol.com

OK Heres my take on the article. I wanted to cogitate over it first.

First lets establish that there are 3 classes of space collectors. There are the Professional Collectors (and dont howl, read the whole thing first this is NOT an insult nor an "allegation") and there are the Casual Collectors at each end of the spectrum and the majority here fall into the midrange - lets call them for the sake of the discussion the "Avid Collectors".

I am defining them as follows:

Professional Collectors (PCs):

Those with access to large amounts of money that are able to buy what we consider "high end" objects for their personal collections. I was privileged at one time to wear Dave Scotts lunar checklist and thats something I would consider VERY high end. Notice I indicated "access to" large amounts of money as they may not be rich themselves, but can accumulate through wheelings and dealings as well. This would also include those who "inherit" objects and items and would consist of more than autographed photos.

Casual Collectors (CCs):

Those who obtain smaller end items, from a patch at a NASA gift shop and a few related items to an occasional autographed photo. No real money is spent, either on the purchase or postage.

Avid Collectors (ACs):

Those who are close to getting divorced by their wives (or increasingly so by their husbands...<G> ) because of their obsession and have a lot of stuff but not as much as the Professional and a LOT more than the casual. <G>

I suspect 90% of us fall in that "Avid" range, envy the "Professional" (I sure as heck do) and hopefully we all help the "Casual".

With this in mind, lets address the article. That article to me, was certainly a blatant example of churning out grist that was ill researched, at best. It seems to show one side (USA Today? Cmon....<LOL> ) instead of a fair and balanced view. Why? Possibly from an Editorial standpoint - but more likely the time issue as indicated also. As a Contributing Editor for a magazine, I've fallen prey to "the chop and disarrangement" knife pen on many occasions, and have suggested same as well. I think it all depends on the philosphy and direction of the print media being written for. Sadly in this case, it appears it was a "fluff" article and very poorly done no matter the reasoning. It made the "Avid" and "Professional" collector appear to be hoarders as indicated.

And that is no more truthful than the man in the moon and I'll tell you why. Some of the PC's I know are more than generous offering these items for display or view. Heck from an ego standpoint alone they want to show it off! (And that is NO insult - Im thrilled they do). Most ACs display their stuff on websites and a lot of other spaces. One list member recently loaned some of his stuff to a local museum - the list goes on.

But that they have them in a personal collection other than a public one seems to be the tome of the article and makes them appear greedy in doing so. Another fallacy, as for years NASA freely discarded and gave a lot of this stuff away as scrap, and some of these people took advantage of preserving it (and yes have sold it). Had they NOT done so, a heckuva lot would be gone forever to the scrap pile never to be found.

Plus lets not forget some of the Engineers and other Pad Rats (legally and legitimately) took souveniers. I know one guy who was at an early Engineers house and was amazed at the stuff he had in boxes from the Mercury program. He found out when he was holding a funny looking bolt and asked what it was. Any guesses? The explosive bolts from Glenns capsule. And how about the astronauts who are selling things from their missions?

So between the scrap NASA tried to get rid of by just throwing away, what was taken by workers and astronauts; collectors are a small piece of THAT jigsaw puzzle. Too bad the writer didnt take 5 minutes to check this out as the majority of collectors rather than being hoarders, are preserving this history.

Al

Cliff Lentz

Space collectibles are like all collectibles, they come in and out of fashion.In Philadelphia, for instance, when old Connie Mack Stadium was closed, the fans were allowed to take anything they wanted from the stadium, seats, signs, I even saw fans cutting up pieces of the sod! Flash forward 32 years to next years closing of Vet stadium. Now that all the items have worth, the Philies have hired a person who "will oversee the disposition of Veteran's Stadium property" Translation: You can have anything for a price!

By the way, put me down as an Avid Collector as well!

spaceuk

Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (you bet ! ) :-)) but if it wasn't for people like myself who display space flown items, very few people would see space items - especially here in Uk

I have done many museum,observatory,library,school,university and industry exhibitions here in UK on space flown items since 1966 to mark Gemini,Apollo-11 landing,Skylab,Shuttle launch And,more recently, Apollo-11 30th Anniversray,Hubble Space Telescope and MIR Space Station - all with flown items on display.

I have spoken with several of the curators of the musuems who have ALL said that though it is nice to know that individuals are willing to donate items to them, the vast majority of items would end up in storage - of which few museums have little storage space anyway. They would prefer if they knew who had these items (i.e.myself) and can call on me whenever a special anniversary or exhibition is deemed. They asked if - from time-to-time - I suggest possible exhibitions. They usually want several months notice since nearly all exhibitions have to be approved by their city council committtees.

In addition, they like the fact that I can normally be on hand to answer techie questions from visitors on the items displayed. You've gotta know your stuff for these - so boneup on the data if you don't know. BUT,don't overdo the technical jargon to a visitor - you'll put them off spaceflight. If they REALLY do want more info politely ask them for their address (or email) and write down their question on a piece of paper/notebook and say you will get back to them with the detail. DON'T LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS ON DISPLAY AT A PUBLIC EXHIBITION . Leave your email address on display with caution - i.e. make sure you have adequate anti virus protection. Best of all, don't leave any addresses of any sort ! Leave a notebook instead (chained up to a desk or at front reception - if you don't someone will nick it) for people to enter questions etc. or suggest they see the Curator if you cannot be present.

DON'T LEAVE any item 'open' to touch in an exhibition unless you are there watching it and want it to be touched. Paintings in glassed farmes,3d objects in glass cases,etc. Museums usually have these and they are normally alarmed cases and walls.They nearly all have CCTV or other intrusion devices for out of hours protection.

The worst culprits? The media. TV want items to be out of cases,can they touch the moon rock,can they wear the space glove......So ,as much a syou want to court these guys for your own PR just watch 'em :-))

I could go on and on about this.

But,I have enjoyed doing it, still enjoy doing and yes I do get a kick out of it.

How many people have seen my exhibitions? A rough count is around 3.5 million in total (1/2 million was at KSC alone in '99)

I think that's the Garber Facility in Maryland --- sort of all the overflow for the NASM. You can get tours (though probably not of -that- room) of it, by the way, and see some great stuff --- including on going restoration work.

Gordon Reade

As I see it there is only one solution to this problem.

We must return to the moon and then on to Mars in order to create new collectables for people like us to buy!!!

Seriously though, someone said that space collectables are no different from any other collectable. I respectfully disagree.

People collect Zippo lighters. There are hundreds-perhaps thousands-listed on ebay right now and biding for the more expensive ones is about $4000.00 People also collect PEZ despensers. I think the people who collect these things do so just to have fun and perhaps to try to make some money.

When someone collects space I think it's that persons way of saying space is important to him.

The writers at USA Today should realize that. They should say, "30 years after the last moon landing people are willing to spend their hard earned money on space artifacts. This proves the moon landings are still of interest and are still important long after the fact."

That's what USA Today should say!

Rizz

Good point Gordon

Jake

So who is going to take better care of something than a collector who has saved up all year to make a major purchase or two at a space auction! Who is going to best preserve the history of the space program better than those of us who eat, sleep, and dream spaceflight so much of the time! Which museum will treasure an item more than an idividual who acquired an artifact from an asronaut themself, or found one after searching countless hours through antique stores, ebay listings, or NASA "garage sales"! Who better to take care of the stories of these flights after those who have made them have passed, than those who made journies across town or across the country to meet, greet, and imerse themseles in those stories from those who were there.

I challenge anyone who argues that collecting hurts history to notice the many examples of important historical artifacts which were only saved from obscurity by some far-sighted individual who valued the artifact in the time when it was happening when others were throwing it out.

I for one, make no excuses for being a collector of space artifacts. I open my home to those who would like to see, learn, and share in the history, hold a "aviation gathering" once or twice a year. (this year it is coming up on Feb 8th.) And infect (well, sometimes bother) those around me with the excitement of a new acquisition.

So who best will take care of these artifacts when I am "gone?" Well I plan to turn mine over to the Museum of Flight here in Seattle - so I guess a museum will get it eventually anyway - BUT for now I get to enjoy them and pass along the stories that these artifacts tell!